Month: October 2009

When we last tuned in, supporters of gay marriage in California had met defeat at every turn in their appeals in state courts to quash Proposition 8, the anti-gay constitutional amendment. They sought to overturn the amendment, which was passed via a ballot initiative last November, on the grounds that it violates the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

Their quest for remedy from the state ended in May when the California Supreme Court, which is controlled six-to-one by Republicans, ruled against overturning the amendment on the grounds that the state constitution does not prohibit voters from stripping rights from minority groups via ballot initiatives, even if they nullify the constitution’s equal protection clause.

There is no similar loophole for voiding the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, however, and now the matter is in the federal courts. Last week, there was a minor but favorable ruling for marriage advocates in the federal case:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of argument in San Francisco, rejected arguments by Proposition 8 proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November’s ballot measure was permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

Walker’s decision means the case will proceed to trial as scheduled in January unless appeals delay it.

The judge smacked down the assertion by anti-gay lawyers that the only valid purpose for marrying is to have children:

During the hearing, Charles Cooper, representing the Proposition 8 campaign, argued that marriage historically has been reserved for unions between a man and a woman because only opposite-sex couples can procreate “naturally.”

Walker, however, noted that not all married couples can procreate:

“Just last month,” Walker said, “I performed a wedding in which the groom was 95 and the bride was 83. I did not demand that they prove they would engage in procreation.”

The judge had previously ruled in favor of a motion by the pro-gay marriage side, led by uber-attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies, demanding that Prop 8 operatives disclose internal communications from the ballot initiative campaign last year — a move that could reveal that the Mormon Church and others concealed their support, fiscal and otherwise, for the Prop 8 campaign. The anti-gay side has appealed the ruling on First Amendment grounds.

Judge Walker suggested in the hearing last week that if the appeal delays the trial’s discovery phase, he might rule in favor of a preliminary injunction that would suspend Prop 8, thus theoretically allowing same-sex marriage to resume in California, at least until appeals related to the injunction were resolved:

Olson, representing same-sex couples in the case, told Walker that if the appeal delays the trial, he may ask for a preliminary injunction to suspend Proposition 8.

“If the case should hang up on a discovery issue,” Walker acknowledged, “that does change the equation.”

A ruling on a preliminary injunction could be appealed, and higher courts could resolve Proposition 8’s constitutionality without a trial. Walker said he thought it would be “unfortunate to short-circuit the process” that way.

So the Olson and Boies team appear to have the homophobes in something of a trap. They can either quickly turn over their campaign communiques — including possibly damning information about the leadership of their largest donors, the Mormons — or they drag their feet and delay the trial, which would prompt the judge to suspend California’s ban on gay marriage.

It’s unclear whether gay marriages could resume while the injunction was appealed, but, if so, thousands of new couples would join the 18,000 who were married in over the summer and fall last year before Prop 8 passed.

It’s the status of these legally married couples that is at the heart of the federal case. The pro-gay rights side argues that the state is not protecting the marriage rights of gay people equally since a select group of 36,000 are legally wed but all others are excluded from the same right.

Along with clarifying the role of the Mormon Church in the Prop 8 campaign, another question that could be answered by release of campaign documents in the trial’s discovery phase is whether the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), a professional homophobia-advocacy group, is a secret Mormon front group.

Still, many gay rights advocates and civil libertarians are suspicious of the motives of attorney Ted Olson, who, along with his old friend Ken Starr, who argued for the marriage ban in the California Supreme Court, is one of the top right-wing lawyers in the country. Olson’s record is alarming. He managed the anti-Clinton “Arkansas Project” (also known as the “vast right-wing conspiracy”) in the 1990s and, in 2000, he argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore before the Supreme Court, successfully convincing Republican justices to vote 5-4 to appoint Bush as president. He was rewarded for this by being named Bush’s solicitor general.

The fear among civil rights advocates is that Olson is shepherding the Prop 8 case to the U.S. Supreme Court now while it is still controlled by Republicans so that the court will rule against gay marriage, which would make its prohibition “settled law” for a generation or more.

From appointing his former campaign manager to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate warm to his televised man-hug with President Obama, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s latest smooth moves apparently are not sitting well with the state’s Republican base or its Independents as the run-up to the primary slowly approaches.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll released today, Fllorida Gov. Charlie Crist’s lead over former state house speaker Marco Rubio in the 2010 Republican U.S. Senate primary has been cut from 55 to 26 percent to 50 to 35 percent, but Crist still tops the leading Democrat, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, 51 to 31 percent among all voters, while Rubio trails Meek 36 to 33 percent.

“Gov. Charlie Crist’s lead, which had been 29 points August 19, has come back down to earth. His margin is still formidable, but obviously Marco Rubio’s focus on convincing Republican conservatives that he, not Crist, is their kind of guy is bearing fruit,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“Among Republicans, 44 percent view Rubio favorably, 3 percent unfavorably, up from 24 to 6 percent August 19. But fully half don’t know enough about him to have an opinion. Filling in that blank slate for that half of GOP voters — positively by Rubio and negatively by Crist — will decide the nomination.

“Floridians now give Crist the worst overall job approval of his governorship, 59 to 31 percent, but governors of many other states would sell their first born — or at least their running mate — for numbers like that,” said Brown. “But because only Republicans can vote in the GOP primary, Rubio’s strong favorable/unfavorable ratio among Republicans is something that should worry the governor.”

Crist’s 51 to 31 percent lead over Meek is largely due to his 58 to 22 percent margin among independent voters. In a Rubio-Meek face-off, independents tip to the Republican by a small 31 to 27 percent margin.

Today’s the day to call your representatives in Washington about meaningful health care reform, or to call them again if you already have. And this tool from Organizing for America makes it a truly three-minute process. You just put in your zip code and up pop the names and phone numbers of the people charged with voting on your behalf (in theory). There’s even a very short script of what to say so you don’t have to worry about getting tongue-tied. It’s so easy, you can’t not do it. Call now!

A pair of job-approval polls for liberal Republican governors — Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Charlie Crist — were released last week.

Schwarzenegger:

Only 27 percent of poll respondents approve of Schwarzenegger’s job performance. That’s the lowest approval rating for any California governor in 50 years – except for the 22 percent approval rating the Field Poll delivered in 2003 to then-Gov. Gray Davis, the man Schwarzenegger replaced six years ago in a statewide recall election…

Schwarzenegger’s disapproval rating – 65 percent – was also the highest of his six-year term in office. The negative feelings toward the governor were consistent across demographic and geographic lines across the state.

Fifty-nine percent of Republicans surveyed disapproved of the GOP governor, giving him no political base to watch his back. Davis had 41 percent Democratic support during his darkest days in office, DiCamillo said.

“He’s almost a governor without a party,” O’Connor said of Schwarzenegger.

Crist:

Charlie Crist’s statewide popularity has dipped below the halfway mark for the first time. The survey … indicated that Crist still has positive numbers across Florida — 48-percent approval, compared to 41-percent disapproval of his overall job performance. But his ratings have been running in the 60- to 70-percent range.

Both these results appear to be incredibly high. Schwarzenegger is nearly as unloved within his own party as he is by the left, but likely has a thin Teflon veneer that is residual from his status as a movie star. Without it, his approval ought to be around 20 percent, tops.

But what is up in Florida? It’s hard to imagine a pol more universely reviled than Crist — at least that’s how it appears here on the Left Coast.

Fortunately, we have no less than two editors who specialize in Florida politics on hand, so let’s pose the question to them.

What is up with Charlie Crist and these astronomically high approval numbers?

As the cock-eyed optimists we all want to be, it’s tempting to try to find good news in the controversy over the Louisiana justice of the peace who refuses to marry mixed-race couples.

“I have piles and piles of black friends,” Keith Bardwell, the J.P. in question, told the AP last week. “They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom.”

Remember that until 1967 it was legal to prohibit mixed race couples from marrying — just as, until 1964, it was technically legal to forbid African-Americans from using public restrooms reserved for whites.

While Bardwell remains adamant that he will not marry mixed race couples — like the parents of Pres. Barack Obama, for example — he is a flaming liberal by comparison when it comes to the bathroom issue. He would theoretically allow Pres. Obama to use his bathroom, in the unlikely event such a need were to come up.

We’ve come a long way, baby — as feminist smokers used to say.

These unfiltered views into the twisted rationale of racist thinking shock the senses. Why wouldn’t Bardwell allow his black “friends” to use the facilities in his home? Is it an issue of cleanliness? If so, it appears that Bardwell, who in photos and the video above, appears unshorn, unshaved and unshowered, sets a higher standard of personal hygiene for people of other races than he does for himself.

As the controversy broke, Bardwell offered insight into his thinking to a reporter for his local paper, the Hammond, La., Star: “Bardwell said from his experience, ’99 percent of the time’ the interracial couple consists of a black man and white woman. I find that rather confusing.’”

Just a half-century or so ago, folks like Bardwell were spared the confusion. A black man whose behavior toward a white woman could be interpreted as anything less than obsequious would have been lynched before the sun rose the next day. But in 2009, the marriage of a black man to a white woman merely engenders “confusion.” Again, looking for the glass half full, we should take this as more progress.

Like all good right wingers, Bardwell’s bottom line concern is, of course, the children: “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

As one wag put it, what’s he afraid of — that a mixed-race kid might grow up to be president?

Bardwell now says he stands by his refusal to marry mixed race couples and will not resign. This prompts the question, why isn’t Keith Bardwell under arrest? As noted, his refusal to marry mixed-race couples has been illegal under federal law since 1964, when the Supreme Court ruled it so in Loving v. Virginia.

It has also come to light that local officials have known about his illegal practices for years. There has clearly been a conspiracy of silence in the parish and the Louisiana state government that has allowed this racist official to repeatedly violate the law.

The U.S. Dept. of Justice needs to review the actions of Bardwell and all the officials who kept quiet about his illegal practices. Giving him a pass sends the signal that United States civil rights laws are empty and meaningless.

If you’re not listening to The Bugle, a podcast brought to us by the Times of London with hosts The Daily Show’s John Oliver and comedian Andy Zaltzman, you should be. Once a week, John catches up Andy on the current news in America while Andy reports what’s happening back home.

This week’s show featured a discussion of peak oil, and as usual, Oliver got to the heart of the problem up until now.

A new report has revealed that there is a significant risk that global production of conventional oil could peak and decline by 2020. Now this has caused some panic because it turns out that 2020 is in most people’s lifetimes, and is therefore a very serious issue. If it wasn’t until a year like 2120, then that falls very much on the “not my problem” file, and becomes a surprise gift to be unwrapped by future generations, along with the issue of nuclear waste storage.

Zaltzman describes the method the world has used to solve its dependency on fossil fuels and the resulting global warming.

And you’d have thought by now that we’d of done something about it but the problem is, John, we need to all collectively get off our asses, and until now, we won’t get off our own ass until someone else is getting off their ass as well. And basically, the way the international community has dealt with the environment has been, “You first.” “No you first.” “O.K., let’s do this together. Are you off your ass? O.K., well let’s negotiate. Let’s do one buttock at a time. One, two, three – hey! You didn’t lift your buttock.” “Well I’m not doing it until you do.” “Let’s hold each other’s butts and push upwards at the same time. One, two, three…”

Painfully true, so we might as well laugh about it. Check out The Bugle.